Does a limit order always qualify for the Logx Pro maker fee?

No. A limit instruction qualified as maker activity only when it added liquidity rather than executing against existing liquidity. An immediately marketable limit order could receive taker treatment. The completed order classification, not the word “limit” in the submitted instruction, determined which documented Pro rate belonged in the reconciliation.

Is the quoted execution fee the same as wallet network gas?

No. The documented OG execution fee compensated keepers for processing a submitted request, while network gas paid for the wallet transaction on the underlying chain. A request could therefore involve both components. The request parameters and transaction receipt supplied different evidence, so the two amounts should remain separate.

Why could closing a position cost a different amount from opening it?

A close could occur after borrowing and funding had accumulated, under different network conditions and with a changed position size. The historical OG schedule applied its position fee at both entry and exit, but equal percentages did not guarantee equal totals. The final close record supplied the applicable size and accrued entries.

Could holding an OG position longer increase its final cost?

Yes. The documented OG borrowing method accumulated while the position remained open and collected the amount when the position increased or decreased. A later action could therefore include more borrowing cost than an earlier estimate. Funding could also change during the holding period because it responded to market exposure imbalance.

Where should the cost of repeated transaction attempts appear?

Each attempt should remain attached to its own wallet receipt and request outcome. An unsuccessful onchain transaction could consume network gas even though it did not produce the intended position change. Add attempts together only when measuring the total cost of reaching the final state, not when reporting one action's protocol rate.

Does a failed Logx request prove that no cost was charged?

No. A failed request did not erase the wallet transaction that submitted it, so network gas could still appear in the receipt. Keeper-fee handling and returned funds had to be read from the actual request outcome and transfers. The failure label alone did not establish either a full charge or a full refund.

Is a liquidation fee part of every normal close estimate?

No. The historical OG liquidation charge applied when liquidation became the terminal event, not when a trader completed an ordinary voluntary close. It should enter the reconciliation only when the position record shows liquidation. Adding it to every preview would overstate normal closing cost and mix two different outcomes.

Logx

Logx fees require matching each charge to the correct product, order path and completed record

The final Logx fee total can be verified only after identifying the product version, order path and completed action. Similar-looking actions did not always use the same schedule: the legacy pool-based venue charged position, borrowing, funding and keeper execution costs, while the order-book product used maker or taker pricing. A pre-action estimate was a checkpoint rather than the final record. Verify the final cost against the applicable schedule, the completed order or position record and, for an onchain transaction, the wallet receipt.

Comparable costs require the same product path

A valid comparison keeps the product, action, fee basis and completion state unchanged. Comparing an OG position increase with a Pro order mixed two different systems, even if both requests had the same notional size. The documented Logx Pro schedule charged 0.03% for maker orders and 0.06% for taker orders. Maker or taker status described how the order interacted with the book, so the order label alone did not settle the classification.

The documented OG schedule followed another structure. It charged a fixed position fee of 0.1% of position size when a position opened and again when it closed, with the deduction taken from collateral. Borrowing, funding and execution charges could then affect the total. A useful comparison therefore placed the same action beside the same action and checked whether each figure used notional size, collateral, elapsed time or a transaction-level amount as its basis.

Terms that make up the recorded total

A position fee applied to the size of the position action. It was not calculated from the collateral deposit alone, so collateral and notional exposure could not be substituted for one another.

Borrowing fees covered the use of pool liquidity while an OG position remained open. The documented method varied with position size and pool utilization, accumulated at 60-second intervals and collected when a position increased or decreased. Elapsed time therefore affected the accrued amount even when the visible position size did not change. A fee estimate captured before waiting could not establish the amount collected by a later position action.

Funding reflected the imbalance between long and short exposure. Depending on the side and market state, it could act as either a cost or a credit rather than a permanently positive charge.

An execution fee belonged to the request-processing path. In the documented OG flow, keepers collected the execution fee for processing submitted requests. Separate contract parameters set the minimum execution fee for market and limit orders. A request that bundled take-profit or stop-loss instructions could require more than one applicable minimum. Those values were configuration-dependent, so an old displayed amount was not a durable substitute for the parameter attached to the actual request.

A liquidation fee applied only if liquidation replaced an ordinary close. The historical OG schedule specified 500 basis points of position size, subject to a minimum of $2. That separate event-based charge should not be inserted into every close estimate. It belonged in the reconciliation only when the position record showed liquidation as the terminal state.

Costs known before commitment

The pre-commitment check established which costs were fixed by the selected path and which remained exposed to later state. Product identity, requested position size and order instructions were known before signing. A documented percentage could be applied only after confirming its denominator. For example, a fee based on position size could not be calculated from the collateral amount without also knowing the resulting exposure.

Several inputs remained outside direct control. Maker or taker status depended on how an order met the book, while borrowing and funding depended on elapsed time and market state. Network gas depended on the transaction and prevailing network conditions. A trader could decide whether to proceed, change an instruction or reduce the requested size, but an early quote did not lock variables tied to execution time or market state.

The acceptable-price field served a different purpose from a fee. It limited the price at which a legacy request could execute, while the execution fee compensated the keeper path. Treating the price boundary as part of the fee total would mix trading outcome with transaction cost. Both could affect the wallet or position value, but they required separate evidence.

Charges that depend on holding conditions and the exit event

Borrowing charges changed with time because the OG method accumulated them during the open position. The final amount therefore depended on the applicable rate state, position size and elapsed interval. A screenshot from entry could preserve the starting terms, yet it could not replace the amount collected when the position later increased, decreased or closed.

Funding introduced another variable because it responded to the balance between long and short exposure. It needed its own sign and amount in the reconciliation. A negative balance change was a cost, while a credit reduced the net cost without rewriting the gross position fee. Keeping gross charges, credits and realized profit or loss in separate lines prevented a favorable funding entry from being mistaken for a lower trading rate.

Liquidation changed the exit condition entirely. Once the terminal record showed liquidation, the comparison had to use the liquidation treatment rather than the assumptions for a voluntary close. A quoted close cost no longer described the event that actually settled the position.

Keeper execution and network gas

The legacy request flow separated submission from keeper execution. The wallet transaction could consume network gas when it created the request, while the execution fee funded the later keeper action. These entries served different purposes and could appear in different parts of the record. A sponsored or abstracted network transaction also did not prove that the platform, execution or position fee was zero. Each component needed its own recorded basis.

Observable checks for accepting the total

The fee record passed only when every material component matched the action that actually completed. Compatibility came first: a historical OG formula could explain an OG record, while a Pro maker or taker rate belonged to the order-book path. The following checks keep that distinction visible.

The product check passes when the schedule and completed record identify the same Logx product; it fails when an OG figure is attached to Pro or a later offering.
The order check passes when a Pro fill confirms maker or taker treatment, or an OG request and outcome confirm its market or limit path; it fails when a submitted instruction is treated as proof of a completed result.
The basis check passes when each percentage uses its stated position-size, time-based or transaction-level denominator; it fails when collateral and notional size are treated as interchangeable.
The timing check passes when the reconciliation uses the borrowing and funding values applicable to the completed position action; it fails when an earlier preview stands in for the later state.
The completion check passes when the order, position and wallet records agree on the terminal event; it fails while the request remains pending or shows a different outcome.

A failed check did not automatically prove that the charge was wrong. It showed that the proposed total could not yet be tied to the same product, state and completed action. The next valid step was to retrieve the missing record or recalculate only the component with the mismatched basis.

Final records that resolve estimate differences

The completed records divided the total into platform charges, keeper execution and wallet-level network cost. For an onchain transaction, gas used multiplied by effective gas price produced the receipt's gas-based amount. Any separate data charge shown in the receipt or explorer fee breakdown also belonged in the total network fee. Token transfers, collateral changes and the final position state then showed where value moved, although a raw wallet balance change could also contain collateral movement or realized profit and loss.

The reconciliation started with the terminal event rather than the expected one. A completed open, increase, decrease, voluntary close, failed request and liquidation each called for a different set of relevant entries. The calculation then matched every charge to its stated basis and kept credits separate. This method prevented a returned collateral amount from being counted as a fee and stopped a funding credit from erasing the gross platform charge.

Final records that resolve estimate differences: The completed records divided the total into platform charges, keeper execution and wallet-level network cost. For an onchain transaction, gas used multiplied by effective gas price produced the receipt's gas-based amount. Any separate data charge shown in the receipt or explorer fee breakdown also belonged in the total network fee. Token transfers, collateral changes and the final position state then showed where value moved, although a raw wallet balance change could also contain collateral movement or realized profit and loss.

View image file

Repeated attempts required separate receipts. Network gas from an unsuccessful wallet transaction still belonged to that attempt, while a later successful request had its own gas and execution record. Combining both attempts into one effective rate was useful only if the purpose was to measure the trader's entire cost of reaching the completed state. It was not the protocol rate for either individual action.

Historical schedules and the relaunch boundary

The trading app currently carries a relaunch notice instead of the former trading interface. That status placed the documented OG and Pro figures behind a product boundary: they could explain historical records but could not establish fees for a replacement offering. A new action would need a live schedule, compatible product state and completed record from that offering. Until those elements existed together, the old percentages did not support a current final-cost claim.